Nothing really insightful here. I just wanted to say that I felt the team really excelled today. Refs gave us another shit sandwich and the team could have buckled with everything going wrong. Instead, the team played for 4 quarters and came away with a win [boxing]. Go Pack!

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - R. Feynman

Nothing really insightful here. I just wanted to say that I felt the team really excelled today. Refs gave us another shit sandwich and the team could have buckled with everything going wrong. Instead, the team played for 4 quarters and came away with a win [boxing]. Go Pack!

It really was remarkable how they persevered. My hat is off to McCarthy and his team for fighting through all the way to the end. The adversity we had witnessed the week before was right back in their faces, unjustly, and they played on. I see these past two weeks as a real bonding point for the team. It will be interesting to see what the effect will be moving forward, with the next 3 games on the road.

I hate seemingly getting the short end of the calls game after game. If the calls even out I don't mind the bad ones quite as much.

Getting any one of the 4 bad/non calls in Seattle would have given GB the win.

The holding call on the ultimately miss FG by NO was just enough to give GB the win. Even the penalty against Daniels helped take Hartley out of his routine. I am not saying there wasn't holding Thomas' part but when things are going bad refs tend to let it slid.

As for the non fumble call by the refs, I sort of look to Mike McCarthy for that one. He only gets 2 challenges a game. The coaches protect the timeouts like they are gold but toss the red flag too much. He should have sat on one of the challenges just in case he needed later in the game which he did. The first challenge was on a short incomplete pass to Jordy. it isn't a game breaker. the second on the phantom catch by Graham. That too wasn't a critical play. While it would have brought up 4th down NO was only at the 31. There was a lot of field for them to cover.

Obviously there is no guarantee that holding on to a challenge means there will be a play later in the game worthy of the red flag. But I see the first challenge flag as a meaningless one. Use it as you will. The second one I would only use it it mean getting a turnover or stopping a turnover. If there is less than 5 minutes left in the game then use it as you see fit.

As for the non fumble call by the refs, I sort of look to Mike McCarthy for that one. He only gets 2 challenges a game. The coaches protect the timeouts like they are gold but toss the red flag too much. He should have sat on one of the challenges just in case he needed later in the game which he did. The first challenge was on a short incomplete pass to Jordy. it isn't a game breaker. the second on the phantom catch by Graham. That too wasn't a critical play. While it would have brought up 4th down NO was only at the 31. There was a lot of field for them to cover.

Obviously there is no guarantee that holding on to a challenge means there will be a play later in the game worthy of the red flag. But I see the first challenge flag as a meaningless one. Use it as you will. The second one I would only use it it mean getting a turnover or stopping a turnover. If there is less than 5 minutes left in the game then use it as you see fit.

I agree on the first challenge.. that was a poor choice to challenge on based on the play alone.

The second, I think that was a momentum changer type call.. and based on the replays should have been a correct decision. Trying to get the defense off the field. I would have thrown that flag all day long, especially in light of our first challenge.

How they can't get the calls right in the replay booth boggles the mind.

On the Sproles play.. how can the guy behind the play be the one making the decisive call on that play? The actions was blocked from his view.

Whether the Packers manufactured some of the issues themselves without challenges left.. the players on the field still have to deal with the emotions of the ebb and flow of the game.

My opinion is the Packers have experienced two very swinging games that much of the swing was not at the hands of the players themselves.

I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

I was at the game. It felt like vindication to beat a team and the refs. That was really something to behold. The crowd turned quick after a pair of complete/incomplete passes that both went the other teams way.

There were multiple after the whistle tussles and Woodson got the worst of it. It took two of our players essentially fighting Woodson off to avoid getting penalized ourselves for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Also, there was the touchdown grab for Nelson that the defender continued to make grabs toward after the whistle. It was good to see our guys, particularly Benson, Nelson and Jones step up for us on offense. Rodgers with one good eye was still able to get us the late touchdown drive we needed.

Although we had several breakdowns in coverage (wondering when that will end), I was impressed with the defense overall. The Saints are not easy to defend, and honestly, I think holding them below 30 points is impressive.

On the Sproles play.. how can the guy behind the play be the one making the decisive call on that play? The actions was blocked from his view.

It wasn't the guy behind the play who screwed up that call. It was the side judge on that side that blew the play dead way, way to fast. As soon as I saw and heard him blow the play dead, I knew we were getting screwed.

It wasn't the guy behind the play who screwed up that call. It was the side judge on that side that blew the play dead way, way to fast. As soon as I saw and heard him blow the play dead, I knew we were getting screwed.

Correct (poorly written on my part).. and the play was away from him. He was shielded from the fumble. He should not have been making that call someone else should have had a better angle.

That said.. you could understand that one. Don't like it but understand it, the official closest to the play was shielded from the play to the ground.

I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

Correct (poorly written on my part).. and the play was away from him. He was shielded from the fumble. He should not have been making that call someone else should have had a better angle.

That said.. you could understand that one. Don't like it but understand it, the official closest to the play was shielded from the play to the ground.

Nah, I don't understand that one. they are told not to blow the whistle and let fumbles play out so they can make a call. Because then in can be reversed. Once they blow the whistle it is pretty much shot. How many challenges were left didn't matter because it is a call that couldn't be overturned anyway.

I agree on the first challenge.. that was a poor choice to challenge on based on the play alone.

The second, I think that was a momentum changer type call.. and based on the replays should have been a correct decision. Trying to get the defense off the field. I would have thrown that flag all day long, especially in light of our first challenge.

How they can't get the calls right in the replay booth boggles the mind.

On the Sproles play.. how can the guy behind the play be the one making the decisive call on that play? The actions was blocked from his view.

Whether the Packers manufactured some of the issues themselves without challenges left.. the players on the field still have to deal with the emotions of the ebb and flow of the game.

My opinion is the Packers have experienced two very swinging games that much of the swing was not at the hands of the players themselves.

I hear what you are saying. Don't completely disagree but after squandering the first challenge call it may have been more judicious sit on the second one.

It was the first possession of the 2nd half. Only 16 seconds into the 3rd quarter. There was a whole lot of football to be played. Even if they won the challenge, gotten the punt with excellent field position and then scored there would still be 3/4 of the half left. It is nice to have a two TD cushion but there would have been a lot of game left and plenty of time for Brees to mount a comeback.

It would have made more sense to use it to change the momentum later in the game. Of course IF Mike had one the first challenge and a win on his second challenge was going to allow him a third one I would have gone for it too. There is no way Mike could have expected the ref not to agree with his challenge. But the way it was yesterday win or lose he was out of challenges since he lost the first one.

Nah, I don't understand that one. they are told not to blow the whistle and let fumbles play out so they can make a call. Because then in can be reversed. Once they blow the whistle it is pretty much shot. How many challenges were left didn't matter because it is a call that couldn't be overturned anyway.

yeah I heard last night it was not reviewable because of the dead whistler call. My comment is based from the perspective there could have been a challenge.

Something else to consider. Refs are more than human. Do you suppose the side judge knowing GB had no challenges might have been a little quicker with his whistle knowing it didn't matter what he did as GB could not over turn it?

the second on the phantom catch by Graham. That too wasn't a critical play. While it would have brought up 4th down NO was only at the 31. There was a lot of field for them to cover.

Whooooaaaaa Nelly, That play allowed new orleans to much down the field and score, instead of punting the ball. Mike would have had to have been absolutely crazy to not challenge that play. What coach would ever not challenge an obvious incomplete pass that would force a team to punt?

I'll agree with you on the jordy challenge, the odds of winning that one were very slim.

Whooooaaaaa Nelly, That play allowed new orleans to much down the field and score, instead of punting the ball. Mike would have had to have been absolutely crazy to not challenge that play. What coach would ever not challenge an obvious incomplete pass that would force a team to punt?

I'll agree with you on the jordy challenge, the odds of winning that one were very slim.

my comments are predicated off the Jordy call.

And for the record, the first down play did not allow them to march down field and score a FG. There were another 11 plays on the drive. The defense had plenty of chances to shut them down. Including 3rd and 5 (was 3rd and 10), 3rd and 6, 3rd and 10, 4th and 2.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.